Sections 324 and 337 (d) / 34 Definition of evidence Ocular account certified by medical evidence did not take into account the quality and quantity of evidence The allegations against the accused / appellant were that he had complained with the accused Tried life. In dismissing the trial court, the convict convicted under Section 32424, PPC and sentenced the accused to 5 years imprisonment and to pay the throne to the complainant under Section 337 (d), PPC. The accused / appellant claimed that the trial court did not define the evidence in its original context. That the ocular account contradicted the medical evidence. The delay in filing the FIR showed that it was a matter of highlight and that the appellant had no intention of committing the crime, the prosecution's complaint and other eyewitness testimony proved credible by the trial court. And their presence was established at that place. Beyond doubt, the court had to look at the quality, not the amount of evidence and if the ocular account was to affect the trust, then it would have to be relied upon to file the FIR within two hours if the offense was proved. And a complaint was filed immediately in filing an FIR. Any possibility of consultation and consideration was not ruled out. The specific role assigned to the accused by the medical evidence was confirmed, the positive information of the experts, the retrieval, motions, medical evidence and the prosecution's case proved to be fully proven. The prosecution's case stands on its own. And in one case, the facts and circumstances may not be exactly the same
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
